Monday, February 19, 2018

Contra the Bishops: A Canadian Defends the Holy Eucharist

How is it possible to
foster respect for human life when disrespect for God Himself, through the Body
and Blood of Christ, is not only tolerated but modeled at every Mass?Blood
on their Hands

--------------------------------------------------------------------

On May 17, 2017, at a commemorative high Mass in Notre Dame
Basilica in the midst of gala celebrations for the 375th
anniversary of the founding of Montreal, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a
self-identified Catholic, shared in the Eucharistic celebration, stepping
forward to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. He was served Holy
Communion by none other than the Archbishop of Montréal, Christian Lépine, a
Bishop who later justified his action by characterizing it as a “gesture of hope.”

Before delving more deeply into the substance of my claims
against Archbishop Lépine—as well as against every other present-day Canadian
Catholic Bishop—it is necessary to review some elementary Catholic teaching on
the subject of “Holy Communion,” more commonly known in Catholic parlance as
“Holy Mass” or “the Holy Eucharist” [but also referred to as “the Body and
Blood of Jesus Christ,” “the Holy Sacrifice,” “the Lord’s Supper”].

The biblical account makes clear: God alone is holy, man is
not. Man, in fact, is unholy, a sinner. Again, history makes clear: Never
approach God on your own terms. The terrible truth is that ignoring or
forgetting, even accidentally, the law of God respecting His presence, is a
fatal mistake. Witness the account of Uzzah in the
Old Testament, struck dead for trying to steady the ark of the Lord.

“The anger of the LORD
burned against Uzza, so He struck him down because he put out his hand to the
ark; and he died there before God.” 1 Chronicles 13:10.

The instruction of God’s Word is incontestable: Sinners are
unclean and God’s command is “but like the Holy One who called you, be holy
yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE
HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY." 1 Peter 1:15-16. The divine rule then is “be
holy yourselves also in all your behavior.” But exactly what does this rule
comprise? How do we know for sure?

For a Catholic this is not a difficult question. We trust to
the wisdom of the One True Church of Christ to interpret and counsel us in this
regard. The Church has authoritatively spoken on the matter of holy behaviour
and drawing nigh unto the Lord: We are invited to approach God the Father
through Jesus Christ His Son in the Holy Eucharist.

CCC1384 The Lord
addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the
Eucharist: "Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of
man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

We don’t get to make our own rules.

CCC1385 To respond to
this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment.
St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "Whoever, therefore, eats the
bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of
profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat
of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without
discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself [I Cor. 11:27-29]
." Anyone conscious of a grave sin
must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.

Again, for the Catholic, it is the Church who speaks for
Christ in this world, and in our time. To follow Christ is to humbly follow in
the Church for whom He died and to conform our attitudes, beliefs and behaviour
accordingly. Of course we are free to choose to believe otherwise, and align
our behaviour according to some other system or standard. But, in that case,
when we resist the Church and her teaching, we do not have the option of
insisting on the name Catholic.

The Church further explains the nature of the Encounter:

CCC1413 By the
consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and
Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and
wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and
substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf.
Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

Let us be clear: This is no Protestant notion of Holy
Communion. This is Christ Himself who comes to meet us under cover of bread and
wine. It is not some symbol, simple or profound, glorious or mysterious, of
Christ, but rather Christ Himself. It is not merely a ceremony of remembrance
of Christ; rather it is the remembered Christ truly present. It is Christ
Himself, with us, and worthy of the worship of God, yet present mysteriously in
the bread and wine.

What then are the rules of this engagement? How must we
conduct ourselves in the Very Presence of Christ the King of the Universe? For
the good of our souls there must be no mistakes or misunderstandings!

The Church sounds out clear instruction and warning:

CCC1415 Anyone who desires
to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace.
Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without
having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.

Very well then, at an appropriate time before Mass, we must
look inward, taking stock of our condition. This is what is referred to as an
examination of conscience and its results will either clear us for Holy
Communion or send us off to Confession, that the grave sin(s) confirmed in our
exam of conscience might be confessed before a priest who stands in the stead
of Christ and whose declaration of absolution then readies us for Holy
Communion.

But what if a Catholic should object to this formula or
otherwise trivialize the matter of grave sin? What if the Catholic were fooling
himself on the matter, being deceived by devils? And what if the Catholic,
while acting contrary to the formula—for whatever reason—were a prominent,
public figure?

Ultimately, the responsibility for safeguarding the Eucharist
from any and all abuses, including those just described, rests with the Bishop.
However, the Bishop has been provided with guidance in the matter and is
expected to respond according to well defined Church law. This is a crucial
point: The Bishop has relatively little latitude in the matter precisely
because of the magnitude of the potential damage arising from a sacrilegious
Holy Communion [more simply, a sacrilege, otherwise known as a desecration of
the Holy Eucharist]. And what is the magnitude of this sacrilege? The judgment
of the Church throughout history concerning this most grave offense may be
summed up by quoting from the Catechism
of the Council of Trent 1566 (De Euch., iv.i):

“As of all the sacred
mysteries bequeathed to us by our Lord and Savior as most infallible
instruments of divine grace, there is none comparable to the most holy
Sacrament of the Eucharist; so, for no crime is there a heavier punishment to
be feared from God than for the unholy or irreligious use by the faithful of
that which is full of holiness, or rather which contains the very author and
source of holiness (1 Cor. 11:30).”

Let’s return then to the subject of the prominent, public
Catholic figure approaching for Holy Communion whose actions appear contrary to
the formula provided in CCC1415.
How is the Bishop instructed to prevent the possibility of grave abuse of the
Eucharist? Canon 915 of
the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church provides the rationale and the
response. The text of the Canon is as follows:

“Those who have been
excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the
penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be
admitted to Holy Communion.”

Canon 915 identifies three different conditions under which
Holy Communion is to be denied to a Catholic:

i. First, those who have been excommunicated e.g. the
decision in 2013 by Pope Francis to dismiss Father Greg Reynolds from the
clerical state and to declare him excommunicated
because of his public teaching on the ordination of women contrary to the
teaching of the Church.

ii. Secondly, those who have been interdicted, e.g. such as
the inderdict
threatened by Bishop Robert Morlino of the Catholic Diocese of Madison against
unruly parishioners in 2012.

iii. Thirdly, those “obstinately persevering in manifest
grave sin” [more commonly known in past times as the “publicly unworthy”.]

A 2004 memorandum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith on "Worthiness
to Receive Holy Communion", signed by its Prefect, Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger, explains in brief form the administration guidelines for Canon 915.
Here is the most relevant passage for our purposes:

4. Apart from an individual's judgment about his worthiness
to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy
Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute
Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a
declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can.
915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a
person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a
Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive
abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him
about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself
for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin,
and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had
their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in
question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the
Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute
it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy
Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos.
3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is
the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective
guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive
Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

There has been a good deal of disputation
by Bishops regarding the denial
of Holy Communion under the terms of Canon 915. A good many Bishops insist
that the decision whether or not to even apply the Canon, at any time or under
any conditions, is a matter strictly of the Bishop’s personal judgment, i.e.
his normal right to “prudential judgement, “ thus setting aside the objective
truths embedded in the canon. Thus do these Bishops shield themselves against
any criticism of their inaction relative to Canon 915. Bishop Paprocki of the
Diocese of Springfield, Illinois has spoken
out in order to educate Catholics on the duty of all Bishops with respect
to ecclesiastical laws:

“All clergy before
they are ordained take an Oath of Fidelity which includes the statement, ‘In
fulfilling the charge entrusted to me in the name of the Church, I shall hold
fast to the deposit of faith in its entirety; I shall faithfully hand it on and
explain it, and I shall avoid any teachings contrary to it. I shall follow and
foster the common discipline of the entire Church and I shall maintain the
observance of all ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code
of Canon Law.’ Pastors and bishops repeat this oath upon assuming their office
to be exercised in the name of the Church. Thus, deacons, priests and bishops
cannot contradict church teachings or refuse to observe ecclesiastical laws
without violating their oath, which is a promise made to God.” [full text
available here.]

A seldom mentioned authoritative source, powerful in its
statement, beckons all those who wish to gain clarity over the din of voices on
the subject. Cardinal Ratzinger, in his 2004 memorandum discussed above,
pointed already to this source: the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts,
in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and with the
Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Although
the context of the document
concerns the admission to Holy Communion of Catholics who are divorced and
remarried, the application of the principles of Canon 915 are on full display
and the foundation of the Church’s teaching strongly defended therein. All
those seeking to know the mind of the Church on the matter of Canon 915 are urged
to read the brief judgment of the Pontifical Council. The Council, in the early
stages of its document, sets the tone:

Any interpretation of
can. 915 that would set itself against the canon's substantial content, as
declared uninterruptedly by the Magisterium and by the discipline of the Church
throughout the centuries, is clearly misleading.

In the wider context of Canon 915, a very important and
recent discussion by canonist Edward Peters on the severe consequences of
disregarding its divinely-rooted origins can be found here.

Claims against the Archbishop of Montreal

Having reviewed some basic principles of Catholic teaching
on the subject of “Holy Communion” we must now return to the matter of my
claims against the Archbishop of Montreal. These are the two claims:

Claim 1: Archbishop
Lépine transgressed the laws of the Church

Archbishop Lépine, in allowing reception of the Eucharist by
the Prime Minister, transgressed the laws of the Church by sidestepping the
provisions and mandate of Canon 915. To my knowledge only one
news outlet reported the event in that light, declaring it to be an act of
sacrilege. Others reported it in a very matter of fact way, drawing no
attention whatever to its controversial nature. The Catholic Register, official
newspaper of the Archdiocese of Toronto, included in its coverage of
the anniversary Mass a statement that was truly oddball, at least in its very
glaring omission: “Trudeau, who supports a woman’s right to abortion and whose
government recently began funding abortion in the developing world, received
Holy Communion from Lepine.” This was a shocking and scandalous disclosure, by any Catholic standard, but the lack of any related comment
by the Register added further shock and disgrace. The
Cardinal Archbishop of Toronto, Thomas Collins, attended the commemorative Mass along with about 30 other Bishops and sat a mere few metres from the
ignoble act. Was that a factor in this omission from his diocesan newspaper?

Claim 2: Archbishop
Lépine spouted heresy

Archbishop Lépine seriously compounded his predicament
through a series of heretical statements made to media sometime soon after the
event. Here, drawn from one media report, is the essence of Archbishop
Christian Lepine’s apologetic for giving Holy Communion to Justin Trudeau,
along with my comments in red and in brackets. The Archbishop's words (with very minor adaptation) appear in italics at the start of each paragraph.

Holy Communion was a
“gesture of hope.”[This statement represents a
great danger to the Catholic faith. It suggests that the Holy Eucharist may be
enjoyed by one whose communion with Christ is not only in doubt but whose
outward behaviour overwhelmingly testifies against that fact. It views the
partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ only as a stepping stone of sorts to
that true communion with Christ which, to the contrary, the Church says is
non-negotiable in the moment. Instead, the Archbishop proposes that it is about
what may be, or what might develop over time or merely what is desirable. If
Holy Communion may be a “gesture of hope” then it does not speak of what is; it
does not testify to current realities and dispositions. May we hear a word from
the Church? “The celebration of the Eucharist, however, cannot be the
starting-point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a
communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection.” #35. Ecclesia De Eucharistia, Pope John Paul II.]

Holy Communion was “to
keep in contact and…to keep a bridge open.”[This
statement is but a continuation of the first thought, i.e. that Holy Communion
is a hopeful gesture only, foreseeing some future attainment of a state of
grace. The Archbishop reduces the Holy Sacrament to a kind of symbol that
serves as a step in the process of conversion or readiness to meet Christ. He
denies that it is to be in every case an already established communion
accompanied by holy disposition.]

There’s a “distinction
between the human being and what the person does, or says or thinks.”[This is a statement aimed at destroying the connection
between free will and the chosen act of sin. It is a fundamental contradiction
of the moral law, implying human beings must not be judged and/or censored on
the basis of their thoughts, words or deeds. It also implies all human beings,
regardless of spiritual disposition, are free to partake of Christ in the Holy
Sacrament.]

We must “stay focused
on who the person is, a human being called by Christ, called to true freedom.”[The subtle argument here is that our human dignity
alone qualifies us to approach and receive Our Lord. Because Christ has called
us to divine life we must be automatically & perfectly united to Him,
regardless of personal choice. We are encouraged no longer to focus on a man
freely choosing a host of evil actions that kill bodies and souls, but rather
we must see simply a fellow human being called by Christ.]

“One of the
difficulties is that we live in a dialectic of opposition, pressure groups
against pressure groups, ways of thinking against ways of thinking, but behind
that we’re all human beings.”[Here we are informed
that we must break free of our identity group which imposes contradictory ways
of thinking upon us and which keeps us from seeing one another as simply the
human beings that we are. This is purely a call to abandon our Catholic way of
life and the reality of objective truth.]

“Publicly, there’s a
need for communication, and there’s been communication, but there are many
forces going on in society, so yet again, it’s a matter of hope.”[This seems to be an acknowledgement of the need to resolve
some difficulty, and a public one at that, with conversation, which is a giant
step forward. But because society—and presumably conversation about those
public matters—is complicated, there has been no resolution. Therefore, we must
return to the “gesture of hope” argument. See Archbishop’s first apologetic
above. But note well that the Archbishop is here admitting, on the one hand,
failure of a process that is meant to restore a soul to good standing with
Christ, and, on the other hand, nevertheless affording that same soul all the
benefits of good standing! This is a dangerous breakdown in logic since what he
advocates is unworthy reception of Holy Communion, which only compounds the
grave state of sin of the individual!]

Regarding sacrilege, a
distinction must be made between “the person and the acts of the person and
what the person says.”[Again, we see the same
argument as in a similar previous statement cited above. We are being informed
that we must not judge someone’s right to the Holy Eucharist on anything other
than the fact of being a human person. Therefore, we must accept that
regardless of words or actions, every person, presumably every baptized person,
may freely feed on Christ at Mass. This formula erases the concept of sin as
well as any distinction between the grave sin that prohibits reception of the
Sacrament and the grave sin of sacrilege that results from the profanation of
the Sacrament. Since it is a denial of sin itself, it also denies the concept
of sacrilege.]

It’s “going too far”
if someone “feels to be rejected as a person.”[It’s
true that in some settings and situations we might say that it goes too far to
place restrictions on people that cause them to feel rejected. However, the
context here is the Holy Eucharist and God Himself imposes His divine law on
access to that Sacrament. The Church merely seeks to serve God in making His
Son accessible to all men, but only in full accord with the express will of
God, regardless of the feelings of any one individual, since God is not a respecter
of persons.]

The challenge is “how
to discuss what is said or what is done without rejecting the person as a
person.”[Since there is no conflict between the
law of God and the perfection of man, we can be sure that nothing God asks of
us is actually a rejection of our person. The Archbishop seems to be denying
this fact. He seems to be saying that when an explanation is given of Church
teaching on the subject of the Holy Eucharist and particularly the worthy
reception of that Sacrament, the Prime Minister might imagine he is being
rejected, and that is an unacceptable outcome. Since a Bishop is called to
govern, to teach and to sanctify, one hopes that he can connect the dots better
than this. In the final analysis however, Canon 915 is suited perfectly to just
this sort of impasse and it deals only with the outward objective condition of
the Catholic’s public behaviour. It is not a judgment on the subjective state
of the soul of the person.]

Regarding scandal, “it
can cause scandal to the faithful if you cut someone.”[Is the argument here that there is no good or effective
method to deal with scandal, regardless of how we govern our actions? If that
is the case Our Lord left us in a terrible predicament, warning us at the peril
of our souls not to offend the little ones while knowing at the same time that
it was really impossible for any man to personally prevent scandal. However, it
is possible that the Archbishop was saying something else. Perhaps he was
saying that if action was taken against the Prime Minister in regard to denying
him Holy Communion, that some of the faithful would nevertheless still be
scandalized by such a serious action. But we must reply to that with a
question: Dear Archbishop, is it better to obey God and be misunderstood for
it, thus being forced to undertake better catechesis of the faithful or is it
better to ignore God because His ways seem to put us in what we consider
impossible straits?]

We mustn’t “lose sight
that it’s a human being created in the image of God.”[This is basically another version of a previous argument
already discussed above: “stay focused on who the person is, a human being
called by Christ…” The argument denies the very Gospel of Jesus Christ since
all men are human beings created in the image of God and have always been, from
creation, exactly that. If that were sufficient basis today for any human being
to approach the Eternal God then Jesus Christ need not have died for our sin
and redemption. ]

On establishing contact
with Trudeau: “The call is happening, but if you want to call, you have to be
connected, you have to meet somewhere.”[The
Archbishop is quite adept at vague language, leaving the listener to fill in
the blanks as required. But this is another version of failure of resolution
and the “gesture of hope” argument which we have seen in previous statements.
This is what the Archbishop is really saying: “We’re working on the problem
with our PM but if we deny him access to the Holy Sacrament it will rupture our
connection so we have to go with a less than perfect solution, i.e. allow him
to make a sacrilegious Holy Communion. This, by the way, is a near perfect
picture of the new “accompaniment” paradigm being fostered by many renegade
Bishops globally, which is nothing more than accompaniment in sin.]

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth
which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith [CCC2089]. In his statements
given in May 2017 Archbishop Lépine clearly denies a divinely revealed truth:
that the eternal moral code demands the recipient of Holy Communion be in a
state of grace. Because he has made no other public statements or corrections
on the matter since that date one might fairly conclude he
stands accused of heresy, a state of obstinate denial of Catholic teaching.

He has also denied his obligation under Church law,
specifically Canon 915, to deny Holy Communion to public sinners but that
breach does not in itself constitute heresy.

Concluding comments

In the annals of unholy
communion in the Great White North over the last 60 years or so, has a
Bishop ever ventured to explain why he served up the Body and Blood of
Jesus Christ to the nation’s at-the-time #1 public sinner, the Prime Minister
himself? I suspect not. Whether it was Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Joe Clark, John
Turner, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien, or Paul Martin, perhaps we are only now
getting a glimpse of what was in the minds and hearts of renegade Bishops who
never once denied Holy Communion to the #1 public sinner of their day.

This latest blog posting then is merely a continuation of
many years of reporting on the tragedy of heresy and dissent evident among the
Catholic Bishops of Canada since the early 1960’s. Of all my postings, my
article entitled Pastors
And Bishops With Blood On Their Hands-Updated Version provides perhaps the
single best overview of the calamity we face here in Canada. The article was
first written and published for the Vote Life Canada blog in 2007 as an Open
Letter to the Catholic Bishops of Canada and subsequently was posted also on the
Inquisition.ca website. It was written in an attempt to understand the roots of
the tragedy of legalized abortion in Canada and provides the background for a
question I asked myself over and over again in those early years of being a
Catholic convert.

How is it possible to foster respect for human life when
disrespect for God Himself, through the Body and Blood of Christ, is not only
tolerated but modeled at every Mass?

I can refer the reader to another more recent posting which
deals very well with the same subject matter, but directed specifically at the
failure of Ottawa Archbishop Terrance Prendergast to control the awful scandal
of rising star Justin Trudeau in our Canadian politics: Archbishop
Prendergast Resign: Part 4 Why Torture Canon 915?

Here's a question really worth considering: If Canon 915 applies to any public sinner in present-day Canada who
might that Catholic be? Broaden the timeline now to the last 60 years: who might that Catholic be?
Pierre Elliot Trudeau? The culture warriors
of today would likely not consider the father, Pierre, to be more despicably evil than who the
son, Justin, has proved to be. A number of Catholic Bishops have even weighed in
over the years on what might happen "should ever an evil or wicked Catholic
politician arise in the distant future to torment Canada with unjust and
ungodly laws." Two of these well known, brave churchmen (whom I’ve tagged as the Two
Amigos) are on record here
and here
as being ready to jump into the lion’s den and rout the enemy! Duly noted.

But not only have these Bishops not done what they said—and
what the Church has commanded—they have done worse! Now they remain silent when a
sacrilegious
Holy Communion takes place by the highest public official in Canada,
even when it takes place on national TV! Presumably they think they will be
spared the discomfort of having to comment any further on canon 915! But as
usual, they forget God. Such wickedness must be punished and will be! But in
the meanwhile, until these Bishops face the Almighty on their day of passing
from this world, Canada itself will pay a high price as the resultant moral
evil spewing from renegade Catholic politicians spreads into the social fabric
of the nation.

The following are some comments I’ve tweeted out over this
past year on the sacrilege that took place in Montreal in May of 2017. I use
the hashtag #Montreal375Outrage to identify the infamous event.

· Since that
blasphemous moment in Montreal not 1 of the more than 30 influential Bishops
& 400 priests present, including @archterentius has spoken up to
condemn the evil perpetrated at that event or to defend the teaching of Christ.
#Montreal375Outrage

· #Montreal375Outrage
demands redress. Who is on the Lord's side? Archbishop Lepine @diocesemontreal ignorant of
Church teaching on Holy Eucharist? Eternal moral code demands recipient of Holy
Communion be in a state of grace. This was act of objective mortal sin
& heresy. Both parties automatically excommunicated.